tv [untitled] October 24, 2012 11:00pm-11:30pm PDT
these other options here top wise 80 aepre, nav sea, the navy would start to fund them before they're out of the $3 million. we would be forced to go to a sole source contracting vehicle for those. so, i didn't mean to get too much into the wave there. it gets complicated in phase ii and 3. that is the the subject of the resolution that is before you. so, the purpose of the m-o-u is my favorite shout out, by the way, just a side-view. the m-o-u nav sea and titan salvage dry dock number one to begin phase 1 of the work. it gives them something to point to, lest the coast guard a excuse them of stealing it when they toe it to pier 50 of the shipyard. that is also the vehicle that is going to contain the release of liability which is important piece of this.
the navy will not proceed without it because salvage operations are inherently risky and if, you know, salvages sometimes sink during tow and they won't be held responsible for that. so, the resolution -- the m-o-u that we would be signing -- sorry, the resolution rather gives us based authority with the [speaker not understood] manager and he gave us [speaker not understood] about that. lastly, the m-o-u or the resolution that is before you, the m-o-u would not obligate the port to spend anything. this is all on the navy, but they can't move forward without it. so, what's next? and i should note that as we execute this m-o-u, the navy, titan salvage, their towing subcontractors, are allred i to build. they stated a preference for
beginning this process by the end of october. for the tow up to mayor island they want to beat the weather. it is conceivable after a decade on the waterfront it could be gone in a couple weeks. that's what i'm personally excited about. the next couple of steps. in the next week or two, as soon as we have two pieces of information back from titan salvage, the general contractor, we will have everything we need to have staff get together on this and make the evaluation as to what the -- which of the four or five options we recommend for the final disposal of the dry dock. and whichever way we go, whether it's through grabbing onto the titan salvage general contractor, one of the subs, we will be back before you requesting authorization for a contract to complete the rest of the work, which will -- only once we hit phases 2 and 3 will involve port funds. that's why we'll be back.
that's it. >> so moved. >> second. >> any public comment? commissioners, questions? >> [speaker not understood]. [laughter] >> in terms of the bisecting and retaining the mid section, how, i guess water worthy as opposed to sea worthy, may be the question. are there risks attended to that? we have to then lose some sort of boyancy, would it be likely they wouldn't stay in place or guaranteed they wouldn't sink while part of it sits there? >> part of the reason why this project has taken so long to close out is because we have gone through three rounds of having titan salvage and the navy come up with a suite of options for us. and we look at them and say,
these are alter i believe, let's go back to the drawing board. they're all too expensive and they're all too risky. we went through a second round of that. and after that there have been, you know -- because we've taken our time with this, wanting to get it right and not spend millions of dollars more than we need to, we lucked into a great project manager at titan salvage who is a naval architect by training. and, so, they have been very sophisticated work on the boyancy and the sections and what is going to happen to them. it is one of the risk factors we will take into consideration in phase ii, you know, whether the bisecting work is done at mayor island so it doesn't have to go anywhere or it's done at bae, which means those pieces would then have to be towed back out. it adds an additional piece of risk. so, you know, coming up with the final recommendation on this really is a weighing of risk/reward. the cheapest alternatives, and they're significantly cheaper, you know, appear to be the
riskiest, the most expensive, the least risk. so, it's really going to be a policy decision, you know, for staff recommendation to consider. >> one question. would it pursue transferring it to dry dock number 1 to dock wise, we would still have to bisect the front and back off of it, or give them the entire dry dock without going through phase 1, i guess, so is phase 1 required to get the money from or get the federal funds? >> if only the vessel that were coming into port for dock wise were a little bit bigger, we would be able to proceed more directly in that way. but it is smaller which makes it cheaper. it also mostly just happens to be here. but we do need to remove the end section so it can fit. and that particular vessel is going to be here. >> and then we would be taking on the liability during transport, if anything would
happen, is that what i understood, we had to release everyone else from liability? >> yes. and, you know, the folks that are executing this project, the salvage arm of the navy, their general contractor, there are expert folks we're going to find in the country to do this. whether they did it or whether we did it ourselves, we're in about as good a hands as we're going to get. one piece that is -- in terms of alleviating risk, one piece that is still outstanding and we don't expect there to be any problem, but is titan salvage, we were waiting for them to return to us insurance certificates which the city and the port insured on their policy to get the extra bit of risk release. >> if i could interject as well, [speaker not understood] we own today. we had it thrown away once and
it cost us almost a million dollars to bring it home. and we have to go out every storm and either folks or machines out there to de-water it so it won't sink. that's how we got comfortable. if he we owned that risk, it would be lovely to transfer it to somebody else. we haven't found anybody to do that, so, hope that helps. >> and the navy wouldn't take it. [laughter] >> we're stuck. >> any further questions or comments? i don't have any. it's a complicated project. i guess you're just asking us to go ahead with the first phase and it sounds like we should proceed with that and we'll wait to hear from you what is the next two phases need to be. >> we'll make a recommendation to executive director moyer with briefings questions if you're interested and how we figure out the trade-offs. we'll ultimately come to you to approve a contract vehicle one form or another to extend the port funds to finish it off. >> okay. all those in favor? >> aye. >> okay, resolution 12 -84 has
passed. >> item 11, new business. >> any new business, commissioner adams requested to bring forward more items showcasing maritime properties and the jobs associated with those operations. do i have that correctly, commissioner? >> yes. >> thank you. anything else? from any other commissioners? >> i wonder if we can get an update at some point on the status of the blue greenway and see how plans are proceeding on that. >> that is such a great time to request [speaker not understood], anxious and waiting to come forward as part of that, also bring forward the recent solicitation for the art for the [speaker not understood]. that's on the calendar for early part of the year, but i'll double-check. in any event, yes. >> i also [speaker not understood] do a presentation before the election so we can see how well we're doing with our [inaudible]. >> that would have been great, wouldn't it?
>> we did make that recommendation. >> we did? that got lost in translation. [laughter] >> one item, i know that we've talked about that there will be some impact on what the transportation, everything with the arena, but having just experienced the embarcadaro myself on sunday where there was nothing going on, i'm just wondering whether there is ways to get what's interim steps can be -- described in terms of transportation and alleviation. we know that is a big issue going forward. * i can talk to you separately about it. i just think we need to understand exactly what's going on in the studies and whether there should be any input from us, just even before we add onto with the arena and everything else going on. >> certainly. i've been working with the head of the mta and asking that we address some interim steps before we finish all the planning that would go along with the new project.
i'll ask him and see if we can get more information made publicly at the commission. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on new business? is there public comment in general? hearing none, can i have a motion to adjourn? >> so moved. >> second. >> okay, all in favor aye. >> aye. >> thank you. [adjourned] >> good morning and welcome to the [inaudible] services
committee, my name is sean elsbernd. (audio very low and unclear). >> the first hearing is a liquor license on hyde street. >> i'm with the police department. the applicant has filed an application with the california department of alcohol beverage control, beverage license type 42, this is an on-sale beer and wine for 1059 hyde street, the california department of alcohol beverage control seeks the determination from the board of supervisors for the approval or denial. the police calls for service on
they shall be permitted only fwaoen the hours of 12 noon and 11 p.m. each day of the week, the sale for on-sale consumption is completely prohibited. no noise shall be depicted on the abc dated june 12, 2012. number 4, the petition ers shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter over which they have control, number 5, graffiti shall be removed from the premises and all parking lots under control of the licensee under 24 hours, if the graffiti happens on the holiday day, the licensee
should remove the graph feet within 72 hours, they should be equipped with lighting to make easily discernable the appearance and conduct on or about the premises, additionally, the position of such lighting shall not disturb the normal privacy and i use of any neighboring residences, and number 7, loitering is prohibited on any sidewalk or property adjacent to the licensed property. thank you. >> thank you, project sponsor, we heard from -- he's unable to attend. are there any members of the public that want to comment on this. if you want to come up, come forward. >> [inaudible]. >> my time now. >> okay, my name is michael nulty, i'm the executive director of alliance for better
district 6, our organization has a protest against this license. first, we have -- well, it's clear when you see an applicant that have no letters of support, they didn't do any community outreach, two, we've never seen a community plan for the business, and three, we believe that there's a questionable business plan if you look at the way their packet reads, there's so many documents in there that you normally don't see in somebody looking for a pcn, so we aren't clear exactly what the business is going to do and we're actually just concerned about, it's a high concentration of crime neighborhood and we don't see a security plan. thank you. >> thank you.
>> good morning, my name is mike and this is my brother roger, thank you, commissioners for hearing to sell beer and wine in a vacant space in the building, we are also in the process of opening a coffee shop and other vacant space on the other side of the lobby. as you can see for our submission to the board, our family owns and operates a few small businesses including four that sell alcohol, we've been commended by the san francisco police department for our management of these businesses, we fully understand the conditions outlined by the police for our proposed wine bar, we also pledge to follow them and work with the neighborhood that has concerns, we are excited to get the two businesses up and running, we respectfully ask that you vote to grant the pcn request. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> and you gaoe with all the
conditions that have been proposed by the police department? >> we, we -- yes, we do. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning, supervisors, i've lived in san francisco for 60 years, if my memory serves me correctly, i was under the impression that the city was trying to limit the issuance of new licenses in regards to liquor, so i was kind of wondering whether that policy is still being followed or as usual, there's always exceptions made depending who you are, so i would like to bring that subject up and i would like to hear the supervisors review that policy to see if it is true that we're trying to limit the new license fees especially in high crime areas, like the merchants know they can't really control or in a certain sense discriminate
against the customers they have, so you know, you may have all the greatest intentions in the world but if people come and do whatever they wish near your property then you're kind of at their mercy, though, you know, just another liquor store sounds innocent on its own, but then when you really think about it, does that mean that's another loitering place or it's another place where gang members might accidentally meet and we'll have another shoot-out, thank you. >> and just for the record, this is not a liquor store, it's a wine bar. >> good morning, supervisors, my name is john nulty, if i believe correctly, this is amc theatre on top, this is on the ground floor, so therefore you have theatre, you have underage people coming in and you want to sell alcohol, so i'm questioning again, coming to the community, no security plan and again the boilerplate
conditions by the police department when they're already oversaturated in this neighborhood, there's a proposal already for a restriction in this neighborhood of alcohol licenses by david chu if he ever gets the legislation off the ground, he came to the neighborhood already about this and putting five on the agenda today, all of them basically surrounding district 6, so i'm wondering about the wisdom of the city of having an all day liquor license of granting five today. >> any other members of the public who would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public item is closed. do we have a motion? >> i would like to move it forward with recommendations. >> that would be the order, mr.
clerk, can you slowly read item 1 so president chu can come from across the hall. >> item number 1, hearing to consider the issuance of a type 21 off-sale general liquor license to landmark retail group for cvs pharmacy located at 1059 hyde street. >> president chu, this one is in your district. >> i would like to first of all address i think the last comment of the public comment on the items for today on my count, there are two items in district 3 which are items 1 and 2 and both of them involve situations that the community and neighborhood groups i think are quite supportive of. i do know that a fourth item is in district 10 so there are two items in district 6 and i appreciate the comment that was made. i do want to mention in the lower poke neighborhood, we have had a conversation about whether there ought to be some cap on future liquor licenses
as i discussed with the lower poke neighbors just last week or two weeks ago, my office is preparing legislation to consider an alcoholic reduced risk, i look to bringing that legislation forward hopefully in the next few weeks, with regards to item number 1, this involves a site that my office and the neighborhoods that are represented here have been working on for a number of years. at this site at california and hyde, there existed a cal food supermarket, they decided to pull out of that area and all of us were troubled at the idea that that very dense set of neighborhoods, really the intersection of middle poke, lower poke and nob hill would be left without a supermarket, so it would be to bring a trader joe's along with a cvs along to that site, it has unanimous support of what we
want to see happen there, now cvs wanted a liquor license nr the neighborhood and this is a part of my district that has a significant number of liquor licenses and i want to thank the neighborhood associations that worked with my office as well as the project spore -- sponsor to come up with a good solution, and that is as follows, cvs would like to have a liquor license but what the neighborhood and what my office has asked them to do is to purchase several liquor licenses, particularly at 2 undesirable alcohol retailers to take two licenses off the street in return for the liquor license that they will have, cvs has purchased the licenses from jane d. liquors at 1042 polk street in the lower poke neighborhood as well as spencer and dan ems at 1541 polk street which is in the lower poke
association, these are problem vendors for which there have been numerous neighborhood complaints over the years and these are licenses that will not be used by cva at the property or sold to another liquor retailer in the neighborhood, these will be results in the elimination of two beer and wine liquor sellers in the neighborhood that have been identified as problem retailers in the past, i want to thank lower poke neighbors had submitted a letter for this particular outcome, i want to note for our colleagues that the conditions that are proposed for this particular liquor license were heavily negotiated between my office and the neighborhood association, because of that, i ask my klaoeks -- colleagues to vote for this. >> the applicant has filed an application with abc seeking a type 20 for 1059 hyde street, for the purposes of this hearing, the abc seeks a determination pr the board of
supervisors as the approval or denial of this liquor license, no police calls for service from july 2010 to july 2012, no record of police reports from august 2011 to august 2012, the application premises located in a high crime area, the applicant premises located in an undue concentration area, there's one valid letter of protest -- to abc and there's no letter of support to abc, there's no opposition of central station and staff recommends approval with the following, number one, the sale, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. daily, no more than 5% of the square footage will be displayed for alcoholic beverage, no malt beverage should be shoeld with the alcoholic content greater
than .57% by volume, the single sale or malt beverages of 16 ounce, 22 ounce, 32 ounce or 40 ounce or similar size containers is prohibited, no beer or wine beverage, should be sold in quantities of less than a manufacturer prepackaged quantities of four or more, number 6, no wine should be sold with an alcohol content greater than 15% except for wine that has been aged for two years or more and maintained in a cork bottle, loitering is prohibited on any of the sidewalks and property adjacent to the license premises under control of the licensee, the petitioner should have equipment, the surveillance shall record and be operation to all times to the premises be kept open to the public, that recording should be kept for a minimum of 7 days and shall be
made available to law enforcement on demand. >> would the project sponsor like to say anything? >> good morning, supervisors, president, holly, [inaudible] representative from cvs to answer any of your question, whether it's specifically about the pronlt or the history of leading up through the neighborhood outreach. i did want to make one point of correction, on the agenda, it identifies the type 21 license, we are in fact [inaudible] a type 20 beer and wine only. if you have any questions, i'm here. >> does staff present an issue?
>> while the city attorney is reviewing that, let's go to public comment. any people in the public that wish to comment on this, please line up. >> good morning, supervisors, i'd like the overhead, please. overhead, please. >> it will come, if you could start speaking, go for it. >> yes. david chu made a point that the licenses were bought by cvs, here is one of the locations on poke not been bought off the abc website, it would have been updated, and also as you can see, it also states that the license has been surrendered so therefore i ask now legally the question of lower poke in their packet, the recommendation in
january and in march, what i just showed you has been surrendered and it has one year in which it is to be purchased, it has not been purchased. part number 2, this is the second issue of the license being claimed to be bought which is not part of the conditions by abc, again, it does not show it's been bought by cvs. so, now i question who is still in the property -- or owner involved, cvs does not own it, misrepresentation here. i was at the meeting for january for lower poke and the community, we voted, but again when we went to the planning commission, the planning commission was concerned about this, this site and there was a big discussion about that in the planning commission when
cvs and the other entity, trader joe's, wanted to have two liquor licenses, so i think there's been a big discussion and no outreach to all the neighborhood. >> good morning, supervisors. this item reminds me about the big discussion here at city hall regarding walgreens and their selling of tobacco, now, i say why give walgreens trouble for selling tobacco and let their competitors, cvs sell liquor? now, nobody's going to figure out which one causes more harm, liquor or tobacco, but i think if the city's going to be fair and consistent and not show any